Yes, it could indeed be old-Dutch (which is in fact old-Westfrisian anyway, because before 1100 AD, the whole area was known as Frisia; the name 'Holland' was introduced only then by Floris II "the fat").

I just know it's still (also) part of the current Westfrisian dialect.

According to your first link, "temet" can also mean sometimes.
I didn't know that.
So Ottema was not that wrong after all, but I think in the context "almost" makes more sense.

### Posted 06 July 2011 - 07:17 PM

The Puzzler, on 06 July 2011 - 01:33 PM, said:I don't see anywhere there that explains what her name actually means.

I will get you started:

MINERVA = my (inherited) properties or possessions

The following is a complete list of OLB-fragments with "ERV", the root-word of the name "MINERVA".

15. [209/06]FRANK ALSA HÉDE THENE ÉROSTE KÀNING HÉTEN
THAM HIM SELVA MITH HULPE FON THA VRBRÛDA FÁMNA
TO ERV.LIK KÀNING OVER SIN FOLK MÁKAD HÉDE
[O+S p.251]
Frank zoo had de eerste koning geheeten,
die zich zelf met hulp van de ontaarde Maagden
tot erflijk koning over zijn volk gemaakt hadthe name of their first king was Frank,
who, by the help of the degenerate maidens,
had had himself made hereditary king over his people

### Posted 07 July 2011 - 03:10 PM

Abramelin, on 07 July 2011 - 02:56 PM, said:And if even that is of no help, the last step would be trying to find out if the word is a loanword from Latin, Greek, or for instance Hebrew.

Or... in case the OLB would be authentic, if the word has been a loanword into Latin, Greek and/or other old languages.

We may have re-adopted words from Latin and Greek, that once had their origin in the Fryan (or OLB) language.

This thread has many examples of where this is acually most plausible.

(example: DEL-TA)

### Posted 14 July 2011 - 10:25 AM

Abramelin, on 13 July 2011 - 01:00 PM, said:The Voynich manuscript has been carbondated to the 14th (?) century, the OLB has been dated (the paper it was written on that is) to the 19th century.

In the most scientific publication about the paper-age study, "The Oera Linda Boek - A literary forgery and its paper", by A. Kardinaal, E. v.d. Grijn, H. Porck; published in: IPH Congress Book 16 (2006), p. 177-185; discussed earlier, it is merely suggested that the paper is from the 19th century, but not clearly stated.

In fact, the various results of the study are so contradicting, that it is very well possible, that the researchers are not looking in the right direction.

They have compared with known 19th century paper making techniques in western Europe and America, but not (older) techniques from (for example) China or Byzantium.

### Posted 14 July 2011 - 10:45 AM

Abramelin, on 13 July 2011 - 05:57 PM, said:And everything that you will read in the OLB can be traced back to sources that were available in the 19th century.

OLB has three categories of information:
1. info that agrees with other known sources,
2. info that is in conflict with other known info, and
3. info that is not in agreement, nor in conflict with other known info.

Hoax theorists will say that the type 1 info was based on the 19th century known sources, and that all the rest was made up from fantasy (or maybe partly on oral tradition).

The problem with this is twofold:

1) The 19th century sources will also have contained much information that was believed at that time, but that we now know is nonsense. Nothing of that in the OLB. The supposed 'hoaxers' will have been extremely lucky with choosing their sources.

2) In the time that the OLB was made public, much more of its content was considered to be ridiculous, than now. The knowledge may all have been available somewhere, but there were no people who had access to all of it; this true information will have been scattered. After this year of discussing OLB here, I think we agree that it's at least possible that OLB is authentic. The dominant view of the late 19th century, of the mid-thirties and of Jensma (2004), is that OLB is impossibly authentic. We have gradually come to a different conclusion.

### Posted 17 July 2011 - 08:38 AM

The Puzzler, on 15 July 2011 - 12:10 AM, said:"... Their tentative existence in the 4th century is confirmed archaeologically by the discovery of a type of earthenware unique to 4th century Frisia, called terp Tritzum, showing that an unknown number of Frisii were resettled in Flanders and Kent...

The lands of the Frisii would be abandoned by c. 400 due to flooding caused by a marine transgression and laid empty for a century, when changing environmental conditions again made the region habitable. At that time settlers would repopulate the region and come to be known as 'Frisians'. Medieval and later accounts of 'Frisians' refer to these 'new Frisians' rather than to the ancient Frisii.
...
In the 3rd and 4th centuries the population of Frisia steadily decreased, and by the 5th century the population had dropped dramatically. The coastal lands would remain largely unpopulated for the next two centuries. When conditions improved Frisia would receive an influx of new settlers, mostly Saxons, and these would eventually be referred to as 'Frisians', though they were not necessarily descended from the ancient Frisii. It is these 'new Frisians' who are largely the ancestors of the medieval and modern Frisians."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisii

I think that's interesting - it's like the ancient FRISII disappeared from history and were replaced by another form of Frisian.

This is important indeed and it agrees with something discussed earlier; Albert Delahaye's theory that the western half of present 'the Netherlands' was mostly uninhabitable because of flooding between the Roman and the Frankish occupation. That is: in most of the first millennium AD.

Some toponyms of Westfriesland are strikingly similar to ones in Westflanders and Calais region (also think of Delahayes long list of "fries-" toponyms in that region). As Joël Vandemaele argued, some of what is described in the OLB (and its language) has more continuity in Westflanders (Belgium) than anywhere in the Netherlands (e.g. supposed Frya worship and the spelling of Frya itself ~ ~ ~ more research needed as Vandemaele did not provide sources for this).

Therefore, it's likely that the most significant e-migration from "ancient Frisii" (or Fryans) from what is now North-Holland, was directly southwards, while most of the re-migration in the late-first and early-second millennium also took place from here (Westflanders, NW-France).

Whether they re-migrated to Westfriesland/ North Holland because the land became more habitable again, or because they fled from the Christenings (and just reclaimed the land), I don't know. Probably it was a combination of this.

The 'Frisians' in what is now Friesland will be a more Danish/ German mix.

There is indeed quite a cultural difference between the Dutch province of Friesland (the nowaday 'real' Frisians), and the region Westfriesland in the province of North-Holland.

In the OLB and in the so-called fantastic Frisian historiography, Westfriesland is much more important than in the 'official' history. Medemblik would even have been the capital of 'old-Frisia'.

There's been many ancient archaeological finds in North-Holland, dating back thousands of years, but there is indeed no continuity. Not much happened during the first millennium AD.

That's the problem, and probably the main cause of why OLB is misunderstood and not taken seriously by mainstream science in NL.

### Posted 17 July 2011 - 09:12 AM

Otharus, on 17 July 2011 - 08:38 AM, said:There is indeed quite a cultural difference between the Dutch province of Friesland (the nowaday 'real' Frisians), and the region Westfriesland in the province of North-Holland.

I'll mention two significant differences:

1) While "Friesland" has a long tradition of (orthodox) Bible-worship, in Westfriesland the church was never very powerful and churches started closing already in the late sixties.

2) While "Friesland" always had a strong 'nobility-culture' (dutch: "adel"); inheritance of accumulating wealth and power, Westfriesland did not have this (in the last few hundred years).

While OLB at first sight might be Frisian nationalistic, it's almost the complete opposite as it will be an uncomfortable read for both Frisian Bible-worshippers and Frisian nobility.

This is why the Fryske Akademy forcefully rejected the OLB,
this is why Goffe Jensma (working for the FA) wrote his desperate conspiracy theory against the OLB,
and this is why (19th century Frisian nationalist) Halbertsma could not have created the OLB (as Abe and Knul suggested).

### Posted 17 July 2011 - 06:52 PM

The Puzzler, on 17 July 2011 - 03:03 PM, said:Has anyone sussed this guy out as having written the OLB?
"Gysbert Japicx (Bolsward, Friesland 1603–1666) was a Frisian writer, poet, schoolteacher and cantor."

IF the OLB was made up, it was done after 1853, when remains of pole-dwellings were discovered at the Zürich lake (Switzerland). (Or at least the parts of OLB were these pole-dwellings are mentioned).

From Sandbach's translation of Ottema's introduction to his 1876 publication of the OLB (p.XVI):

Since the last twenty years attention has been directed to the remains of the dwellings on piles, first observed in the Swiss lakes, and afterwards in other parts of Europe. (See Dr B. Hückert, "Die Pfahlbauten". Wurzburg, 1869. or T. C. Winkler, in the " Volksalmanak," t. N. v. A. 1867.) When they were found, endeavours were made to discover, by the existing fragments of arms, tools, and household articles, by whom and when these dwellings had been inhabited. There are no accounts of them in historical writers, beyond what Herodotus writes in book V. chapter 16, of the "Paeonen". The only trace that has been found is in one of the panels of Trajan's Pillar, in which the destruction of a pile village in Dacia is represented.

Doubly important, therefore, is it to learn from the writing of Apollonia that she, as "Burgtmaagd" (chief of the virgins), about 540 years before Christ, made a journey up the Rhine to Switzerland, and there became acquainted with the Lake Dwellers (Marsaten). She describes their dwellings built upon piles —the people themselves— their manners and customs. She relates that they lived by fishing and hunting, and that they prepared the skins of the animals with the bark of the birch-tree in order to sell the furs to the Rhine boatmen, who brought them into commerce. This account of the pile dwellings in the Swiss lakes can only have been written in the time when these dwellings still existed and were lived in. In the second part of the writing, Koneréd Oera Linda relates that Adel, the son of Friso (250 years before Christ), visited the pile dwellings in Switzerland with his wife Ifkja.

Later than this account there is no mention by any writer whatever of the pile dwellings, and the subject has remained for twenty centuries utterly unknown until 1853, when an extraordinary low state of the water led to the discovery of these dwellings. Therefore no one could have invented this account in the intervening period.

### Posted 17 July 2011 - 07:14 PM

Otharus, on 17 July 2011 - 06:52 PM, said:IF the OLB was made up, it was done after 1853...

But this is unlikely, because of various witness accounts (discussed earlier, dating back as early as 1831) about the existence of an old book that the Over de Linden family already had 'in strange letters' and being about the ancient family history.

### Posted 17 July 2011 - 07:35 PM

Abramelin, on 17 July 2011 - 07:21 PM, said:Halbertsma's gigantic library is accessable online. It is unbelievable what this guy had read throughout his life, AND collected/bought. AND wrote, btw.

So far you have ignored all arguments why he could not have done it.
Therefore, I won't waste my time with this.

### Posted 23 August 2011 - 07:10 PM

Knul, on 09 August 2011 - 10:56 PM, said:In my opinion the presentation in a selfmade wheelscript has been added later to the text as is shown in the investigation of the paper. The outside is browned to make it older, but the innerside stayed white.

How is this 'shown in the investigation of the paper'?

The paper study gave no answer as to how the paper would have been coloured.

When I asked the head of the research team, his answer was that he would provide no further information.

They still don't know if, let alone how, the paper was artificially made to look old.

### Posted 23 August 2011 - 07:22 PM

Abramelin, on 12 August 2011 - 10:45 PM, said:"The Firaesi (Latinization) or Phiraisoi (original Greek) are a people listed in Ptolemy’s Geography (2.10). ...
The Firaesi are not mentioned elsewhere in history"
Any kid with some knowledge of the Frisian history would see the obvious connection (Frisii = Firaesi / southern Sweden).

The Menapians must have been closely related to the Frisians, and at a certain time they inhabited an area from Calais (France) up to Leiden (Netherlands). They spoke a language closely related to Old Frisian. They probably settled in east Ireland, and lived there as neighbours of the Cauci who may have come from coastal Germany.

The Chauci, neighbours of the Frisians and (often) close allies, had all the characteristics (according to Tacitus and others) of the OLB Fryans/Frisians. They were both known as very civilized, peacefull... and as sea raiders.

Both the Menapii and Chaucii must have been very influential tribes, the Chaucii even being dominant at sea, and both connected with Ireland.

They must indeed have been tribes of the same origin.
I wonder what the original meaning of their names might have been.

### Posted 23 August 2011 - 08:04 PM

The Puzzler, on 23 August 2011 - 04:23 AM, said:Example: You have a reconstructed made up word X
you then say well this word Y and this word Z came from the made up word X...

Or you can have a word A
That stays A and is still A
only through time the meanings spread out.

English:
"According to an old colleague, "Ernest Stadermann, who in 1843 was frontrunner of a group of freedom-loving Saxons that resisted against the government with speech, writings and weapons, was bookbinder and -restorer. He had to flee and arrived in Den Helder without possessions."

English:
"In 1843 he was the leader of a group freedom-loving Saxons, who resisted against the treacherous government. First by speach and writings, later by weapons. He had to flee and arrived in Den Helder without possessions."

You wrote:

Knul, on 09 August 2011 - 10:56 PM, said:This was confirmed by my own investigations based on a criminal profile.
...
I blame Stadermann for this, who fled from Germany for prosecution of dangerous criminal activities, and deceived Cornelis over de Linden.

Your choice of words suggest that Stadermann was a dangerous criminal, while in my opinion he was more like a political refugee.

### Posted 24 August 2011 - 05:34 PM

Knul, on 09 August 2011 - 10:56 PM, said:The proof was in fact simple.
In the OLB Oldenglish names of months are used instead of Olddutch or Oldfrisian names.
Halbertma wrote an article on the sellamonth (pancake month) and studied the relation between Oldenglish and Oldfrisian.

3) In 1855 an article by Joost Halbertsma was published (Nieuwe Friese Volks-almanak) about the meaning of "Sellemaand" (February). He had a fascination for old English in relation to the Frisian language.

4) Arenmaand, Wolfsmaand, Hardemaand, Sellemaand, Winnemaand, Minnemaand are according to other sources also known in old Dutch and -Flemmish.

CONCLUSION
The month names are not at all "simple proof" that Halbertsma was involved in the creation of the OLB, as Knul states.

### Posted 26 August 2011 - 07:17 AM

The Puzzler, on 26 August 2011 - 06:03 AM, said:I don't know if it's exactly Tusschenland (in red italics) but it tells me the word probably does not come from the name of Tuisco but rather a descriptive name calling an area of Germany - Twiskland - 'Between Land'.

That is correct.

Twiskland = in-between-land

note that in Swedish, Danish and Norwegian "Germany" is called "Tyskland"

Because it is more far-fetched, this must be a later meaning, just like the explanation with the mythological Tuisco or Tuisto must be of later date.

Also see improvised map. Still thinking about it...

### Posted 27 August 2011 - 09:40 AM

I don't think were done yet with "TWISKLAND".

Otharus, on 26 August 2011 - 07:17 AM, said:A village in Westfriesland is called Twisk.

On the Dutch Wiki-page about this village it says that the name is most likely derived from the oldfrisian word "twisca", meaning "between".
(Maar het meest waarschijnlijke is dat de plaatsnaam is afgeleid van het Oudfriese twisca, wat "tussen" betekent.)

Now let's consider the four following facts:
Fact 1: "twisca" in oldfrisian meant "between"; Dutch: tusschen => tussen.
Fact 2: "betwix(t)" in old- and middle-english meant "between"
Fact 3: in Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Faroese and Icelandic, the name for Germany is (varieties of) "Tyskland" (which in Dutch would be spelled "Tuuskland").
Fact 4: Only in German and Dutch, the name for Germany is Deutsch- or Duitsland; in the rest of Europe, other varieties are used (mostly based on GERMAN or ALLEMAN; see picture).

Question:
What is more likely to have been the original sounds:

T..SK or D..TS?

Note that in oldschool Dutch, "Duitsland" was spelled "Duitschland" (more like German "Deutschland") and that "sch" is a softer (and more modern?) form of "sk".

{see seperate post for picture}

### Posted 27 August 2011 - 09:57 AM

Knul, on 09 August 2011 - 10:56 PM, said:In my opinion the presentation in a selfmade wheelscript has been added later to the text as is shown in the investigation of the paper.

Mister Knul, you still have not answered my question, which is most relevant:

How did the paper investigation 'show that the wheelscript was added later to the text'?

### Posted 27 August 2011 - 10:27 AM

Knul, on 26 August 2011 - 02:28 PM, said:I found so many similarities with the pseudo Oldfrian language of the OLB, that I think there must be a connection.

So there are many similarities between old-frisian (ca. 1000-1500 AD?) and the OLB-language (supposedly ca. 600 BC-0).

This can be explained in two ways:
1) If the OLB is fake, the OLB-language is based on old-Frisian.
2) If the OLB is real, old-Frisian is based on the OLB-language.

As we have seen, the OLB-language not only has similarities with old-Frisian, but also with German, Dutch, English, the Scandinavian languages, old-Greek, and more.

That the OLB-language would be "pseudo Oldfrian" as you call it, is far from proven.

All arguments why OLB would have to be fake are weak.

### Posted 27 August 2011 - 11:56 AM

The Puzzler, on 27 August 2011 - 11:53 AM, said:... if I look at it - the word dui-tsch seems to have an added dui sound before the twisk sound - almost like this is made of 2 words.

Remember that "w" is double-"u", so "twisk" is actually "tuuisk".

### Posted 29 August 2011 - 08:47 AM

The Puzzler, on 29 August 2011 - 02:45 AM, said:One of the German Gods mentioned by Caesar is Mercury, who has been said is Lugus. Firstly, the name itself reminded of the word LIGURIANS. I feel their naem may even be a name for followers of Lugus. Since Lugus was this trade God, and the Ligurians seem to be the ones sailing and trading, it seems not only logical but as well as sounds like it.

"The exact etymology of Lugus is unknown and contested. The Proto-Celtic root of the name, *lug-, is generally believed to have been derived from one of several different Proto-Indo-European roots, such as *leug- "black",[1][2] *leuǵ- "to break",[3] and *leugʰ- "to swear an oath",[4] It was once thought that the root may be derived from Proto-Indo-European *leuk- "to shine", but there are difficulties with this etymology and few modern scholars accept it as being possible (notably because Proto-Indo-European *-k- never produced Proto-Celtic *-g-[5])."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lugus

I was wondering if Lugus might be a Frisian name...but there is not Lug in the dictionary but there is LUK..

The OLB-word that comes to my mind is "LUKIGOSTE", in the 'ode to Frya' (p.18-19 Ottema/ Sandbach).
Translated by Ottema and Jensma as " gelukkigste" (by Sandbach: "most happy").

Another word, with an almost opposite meaning: lugubrious (Dutch: luguber).

A possibly related name: Lucas (Luke).

### Posted 29 August 2011 - 12:26 PM

Otharus, on 29 August 2011 - 08:47 AM, said:The OLB-word that comes to my mind is "LUKIGOSTE", in the 'ode to Frya' (p.18-19 Ottema/ Sandbach). ...

I forgot to mention the obvious connection with the english "luck",
and (less obvious) the dutch "leuk" (= nice, funny)

### Posted 31 August 2011 - 11:01 AM

Knul, on 31 August 2011 - 02:47 AM, said:Apart from this, if the manuscript was really old, how come the pages white in the inner side and browned at the outside ?

Ottema already answered to this in the preface of his 1876 edition (page IX-X, point 3), where he replies to the statements made by Muller and Smidt van Gelder about the paper.

This preface was not translated by Sandbach.
I will give an improvised translation here.

Translated into English:
"If the paper had been artificially colored (painted), the pigment would have penetrated the paper, which is not the case. At places where the paper is broken, one can clearly see that the inside is white. The dirty yellowish black color of the paper is only caused by time, and the effect of its age after more than six centuries.

That the paper was still so well preserved and particularly not damaged by moist or moths, is proof of the careful keeping of the manuscript as a so-called family treasure."

You will agree that the initial tea-coloring theory does not hold, but I guess that you will repeat the smoke-coloring theory.

My answer to that would be that be paper investigators should examine the chemistry of the outer layer of the paper, as this might give an answer to any theory about artificial coloring. Their research does not say anything about it. The head of the research team refused to answer my question about it.

Why don't they do a simple Carbon-dating test?

That the inside of the paper is white, while the outside is yellow-greyish, by no means proves that the paper is artificially coloured. It's only normal that the outside would colour over time, while the inside would remain the original colour.

"In 1867 the Oera Linda Book came to light. Ten years later J. Beckering Vinckers proved on linguistic grounds that it had to be a hoax. After that the quest for the author of the remarkable book started...

I have argued before that Vinckers' (1876) article was highly emotional and (therefore) partly irrational.

He admitted that the goal of his 'critical review' was "to ridicule the language of the OLB".

This proves that his initial viewpoint was not neutral, as it should have been.

Even though I am not a linguist, I will try to identify the mistakes in his conclusions in the near future, but for now I will repeat some of his quotes (translated by me) that show his negative (hostile) attitude towards the OLB.

(I have underlined a particularly interesting fragment.)

My question to Knul for now:

Did you actually study Vinckers' article and do you accept all of his conclusions?

Title:"The falseness of the Oera Linda-Bôk, as proven by the the gibberish in which it was written"

"Gibberish, no better than Negro-English; gibberish, that makes the OLB a mark of infamy in the collection of most illustrous remains of old-frisian language."

"Another example of a clownish anachronism. But why do I say 'another anachronism', - the whole OLB is one single colossal anachronism from beginning to end, which for example is revealed in its long train of words, that only slowly emerged in the French and Dutch language in the Middle ages as degenerated Latin. Behold a mess, susceptible for expansion."

"I have reached my goal; I aimed at ridiculing the language of the OLB."

"But that some Frisian scholars in the year of our Lord 1876 ... are still so ignorant of the grammar of precious literary remains of Frisian antiquity, that they accept a repulsive linguistic botch job like the OLB, after long term study, to be a true remains of overold Frisian, that they indeed, declare the barbaric gibberish in which it was written to be more old and pure than the flawless language of the Oldfrisian certificates, that is indeed an utterly deplorable phenomenon."

The underlined fragment shows that Vinckers assumes that the French and Dutch language "only slowly emerged in the Middle ages as degenerated Latin".

I think we can now agree that this is a huge misconception and this may even be the major clue as to the bizarre misunderstanding of the OLB.

Frisians wanted to believe that their language and culture is more ancient and original than Dutch, while in fact old-Frisian and old-Dutch are cousins; descendants of a shared ancestor.

I'm not sure if I express myself clearly, as I'm thinking out loud, but I have the feeling that this is approaching the core of the issue.

### Posted 31 August 2011 - 09:15 PM

Knul, on 31 August 2011 - 07:08 PM, said:Hello Otharus, I agree with you, that a chemical analysis or carbon dating would be very useful, but alas it will not make an end on the discussions, as the paper analysis in the 19th century did not end the discussions either.

IF the outcome would be the same; that it's 19th century paper, the discussion will still be about the question whether it's a 19th century copy of an older original, or whether the total work would be a recent fabrication. The question how the paper was made to look old would still have to be answered.

BUT, if the outcome would be that the paper is much older and that it was colored by age, which is still possible, the discussion would continue in a whole new direction...

### Posted 31 August 2011 - 09:30 PM

Knul, on 31 August 2011 - 07:08 PM, said:So, if Halbertsma would have written the OLB, he has not been the author of the juul-text, for which I blame Stadermann and son.

Interesting phraseology; you blame them for it...
If they created it, they were geniuses i.m.o., not criminals as you suggest with your "cold case investigation" and your "offender profile".

QuoteI noted that the copier used - the easy way - only a part of the juul script, whereas the real author would have made use of the full range of letters.

What letter(s) was/were not used and how would this prove that the copyist lived in the 19th century and not in the 13th century?

"Those who were settled in the higher marches bounded by Twisklanden (Germany) were called Saxmannen, because they were always armed against the wild beasts and the savage Britons. Besides these we had the names Landzaten (natives of the land), Marzaten (natives of the fens), and Hout or Woud zaten (natives of the woods)."
"Holt jefta Wodsâta", that means that tribe was called Holtsâta or Wodsâta.

"Holstein (German pronunciation: [ˈhɔlʃtaɪn]) (Northern Low Saxon: Holsteen, Danish: Holsten, Latin and historical English: Holsatia) is the region between the rivers Elbe and Eider. It is part of Schleswig-Holstein, the northernmost state of Germany."

"Holstein's name comes from the Holcetae, a Saxon tribe mentioned by Adam of Bremen as living on the north bank of the Elbe, to the west of Hamburg. The name means "dwellers in the wood" (Northern Low Saxon: Hol(t)saten; German: Holzsassen)."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holstein

This "Holtsaterne" on that map is most interesting!

For the record, the fragment is from page 49 of the original manuscript and page 70-71 of Ottema and Sandbach.

You and Knul will argue that the supposed creators of the OLB must have known this map (or other sources that we have not identified yet), but Ottema and even Jensma did not seem to have known about it.

English translation of the footnote:"Landzaten, Marezaten and Hout- of Woldzaten - To be interpreted as those who live on land, lakes and in the woods, therefore land-, lake- and wood-dwellers. Of these names, 'Marezaten' refers to 'Marsati', a native Germanic tribe that was mentioned by Tacitus."

We keep discovering details from the OLB that are validated by historic sources and maps and other languages.

Hoax theorists believe that the supposed creators knew all these things that even the academic specialist of our times Jensma did not know when he published about the OLB in 2004 and 2006.

Yet we have not identified a single detail that CANNOT be true.

How realistic are the various hoax theories by now?

### Posted 01 September 2011 - 09:24 AM

Knul, on 31 August 2011 - 07:08 PM, said:What bothers me most, is, that both the text of Ottema and his translation are full of mistakes, misinterpretations and inconsequent spelling (u-v, y-i, ae-a).

It is clear, that Ds. Halbertsma got the word from the Statenbijbel. In his church nobody understood the word, neither Ottema.

Your second example of Ottema's supposed mistakes is from page 2 (line 26) of the original (Ottema p.6-7).

Ottema translated "BIGORDA" with "begorden", an old fashioned Dutch word that can still be found in Van Dale's famous Dutch dictionary.
Jensma (2006) translated the word correctly with the more modern "bezwangeren" (to impregnate).

Why would Ottema not have known what the word means?

How on Earth is it "clear, that Ds. Halbertsma got the word from the Statenbijbel"?

I don't know if one of the (19th century) meanings of "beguiled" is "impregnated".
If it is not, it is a mistake by Sandbach, not by Ottema.

### Posted 01 September 2011 - 10:04 AM

Knul, on 31 August 2011 - 07:08 PM, said:What bothers me most, is, that both the text of Ottema and his translation are full of mistakes, misinterpretations and inconsequent spelling (u-v, y-i, ae-a).

Example 3

You know, that the old genetive in the OLB is -his (tat his, tathis), shortened to -s (Adela-his > Adela-s, moeder-s wil is wet) and that this old genetive was replaced in the 15th-16th century by prepositions (fon-van). If you look at the OLB text you find only few cases of the old genetive (nachtis - 's nachts) and a overwhelming majority with the preposition fon, indicating that the OLB is a modern text.

No, I don't know if the "old genetive" (...-his or ...'s) was replaced in the 15th-16th century by prepositions (fon-van).

In fact, I don't believe that's true.

How do you know?

Both constructions are still used in Dutch and I don't think there's any reason to believe this has not been so over 2000 years ago.

### Posted 01 September 2011 - 10:38 AM

In the Netherlands there are still several rural dialects, and only few of them have a (recent) written tradition.

At school, we learn to speak and write the national language "Common Civilised Dutch" (Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands or ABN).

The oldest documents in what is called (old-) Dutch, were written by monks or other authority-related people, who would have learned to read and write in Latin.

That does not mean there can not have been a much older writing tradition and it is far from sure that the oldest known attempts to write down the spoken language were accurate.

Modern Dutch or ABN will have been influenced by the various languages of the occupying forces or world-powers.

These were, roughly, from recent to old-times:

English
German
French
Spanish
German/ French
Roman (Italian/ Latin)

Yet, the Dutch language is unique and still has similarities to the languages of the more Northern (Scandinavian) countries.

This means that our original language must have been really old and deeply rooted in our folk-culture.

It is not hard to imagine that we will have had a written tradition, that was thoroughly destroyed for political reasons by the various occupying forces.

(Didn't Roman writers refer to a script that was used by the Gauls of which also no known examples exist?)

That one (and maybe more) documents did survive (in copy from whatever age) may be a miracle and unbelievable to some, but it is not impossible.

### Posted 01 September 2011 - 05:06 PM

Knul,

On your website (tab "onderzoek"), you give a table with the month names that occur in the OLB, compared to old-English month names.
You consider this to be main proof that Halbertsma created (part of) the OLB.

According to the "Middelnederlandsch Woordenboek", WOLFMAENT can refer to November, December or January, (source)
and according to the "Woordenboek der Nederlandse Taal", HARDMAAND (or Hardemaand, Herdmaand) can refer to November, December, January or February.
But January is most common. (source)

From the context in the OLB, it makes more sense that HERDEMONATH refers to January (as Jensma said), and therefore that WOLFAMONATH refers to December (as Jensma said).

Also, in the OLB it is abundantly clear that MINNEMONATH = WINNEMONATH = FRJUNDSKIPMONATH (= may).

Abramelin, on 02 September 2011 - 02:11 PM, said:My problem is that I think it is very unlikely that people living in coastal areas would not go out onto the sea.

For that one needs good ships, made of strong wood (oak!), and sails (hemp?).
And some tribes were better at that than others.
The 'Juttar' also remained (mostly?) ashore.
They can still live from fish, agriculture and trade.

QuoteOriginally Katham was an independent town. The place name indicates a piece of land outside a dike, Ham, and belonging to someone called Kat or Katte. But Kat may also refer to a quay located along the Zuiderzee, or a reference to the nearby Katwoude.

Nice find, I didn't know that place.

### Posted 02 September 2011 - 07:31 PM

Abramelin, on 02 September 2011 - 04:43 PM, said:But how would you translate this part:

Brittania that was the land of the exiles,
that were brought away with help of their Burchfam,
to save their life

So (using common sense) first there was the word:(WÉI) BRIT(H) = brought (away)

then the people:BRITNE = outcasts, exiles

and then the land that was named because of these people:BRITTANIA (various spellings) = Britain

(which does not mean that all BRITNE lived only in BRITTANIA)

... and ofcourse there is Bretagne in France (called "Brittany" in English).

### Posted 02 September 2011 - 08:16 PM

Abramelin, on 02 September 2011 - 07:54 PM, said:I do not disagree with the literal meaning of 'britne' (outcasts, exiles), but in the pieces of texts I quoted from the OLB it is clear for me that Britons are meant.

Yes, OLB is full of ambiguities, words that can be interpreted and translated in different ways.

That's actually one of the things I love about it.

If I would have to translate it, I would use many footnotes.

(That's why I prefer to read it in the original language...)

### Posted 03 September 2011 - 07:03 PM

Abramelin, on 03 September 2011 - 05:58 PM, said:And "Hemar" is Hem + Ar, and -ar stands for multiplicity. The modern Germans still use a similar ending when there is a multiple: Man > Männer = man > men.

[Sandbach]From the river a canal was dug
going past the citadel Forana (Vroonen),
with a narrow outlet to the sea.
This was the egress of the fleet;
the Fly was the ingress.
On both sides of the river are fine houses built,
painted in bright colours.
The gardens are all surrounded by green hedges.
I saw there women wearing felt tunics,
as if it were writing felt.
Just as at Staveren, the girls wore
golden crowns on their heads,
and rings on their arms and ankles.

[Sandbach]While all this was going on,
the Magyars went about audaciously
over the lands of our neighbours.
Near Egmuda, where formerly the citadel Forana had stood,
they built a church
larger and richer than that which Askar had built at Staveren.

### Posted September 4, 06:33 AM

Abramelin, on 03 September 2011 - 10:55 PM, said:But it was Grimm, Halbertsma's best friend, who popularized Krodo.
Think about that one, please.
Before Grimm, no one even knew about "Krodo".
Yeah, his ages old sources did, but not anyone from his time.

What is your source for Grimm being Halbertsma's "best friend"?
And how do you know that before Grimm "no one knew about Krodo"?

Anyway, what are you suggesting? That Halbertsma wrote the OLB?
There is too many reasons why he CANNOT have done it.

Read some of his publications.
He had an extremely boring style and was not THAT intelligent.

He was a Frisian nationalist.
Why would he add so many so-called Hollandisms (words that are more like Dutch than as Frisian).
Why would he be negative about Frisian supposed founding father Friso?

### Posted September 4, 08:14 PM

Abramelin, on 04 September 2011 - 12:55 PM, said:I have posted about the many letters Grimm and Halbertsma sent to eachother. They also were both pioneers of modern linguistics, and both very interested in old Germanic/Nordic languages and myths.

So they corresponded and shared interests. That does not make them "best friends".

QuoteAnd I have said many times now that Halbertsma could have created the OLB, but not to publish it as something 'real', but instead just for himself as some kind of exercise in Old Frisian-ish. Then later someone else sort of 'stole' his text, and things went roling.

And this 'someone else' also 'sort of' inserted the Over de Linden/ Oera Linda family into this 'exercise'?
How do you explain all witness reports about the Over de Linden family owning an ancient text from their family in 'old-Frisian' and 'strange script'?

If the OLB was created in the 19th century, its maker must have been an extreme genius with an incredible sense of humor.
Halbertsma does not even come close to qualifying for this job. Did he ever make a joke in his work? I challenge you and Knul to give one example.

QuoteI know he was a Frisian nationalist, and I have said many times he was very fanatic in bringing Frisian history and language back from the anonimity it had in Europe.

That's why he couldn't have done it: the OLB was too much in conflict with the 19th century paradigm of old-Frisian language and history. That's why it was agressively rejected. If Halbertsma made something like that, it would have been a (Frisian elite) crowd pleaser. OLB was the opposite; it was taken as an offense.

QuoteHe also says that he wants to force the linguists to acknowledge the fact that Frisian is one of the oldest branches of Germanic, and that it is the most far spread out language all over the world; actually he means the English language which he considers a direct offshoot of Frisian.

Like I said before, the 'Hollandisms' in the OLB were (and are) a horror to Frisian nationalists.
I'm sure there are many examples of words in the OLB that are more like Dutch than like Frisian (as some words are more like the Scandinavian languages etc.). Halbertsma would NEVER have done that.

QuoteBut I don't understand why Halbertsma would be negative about Friso; was he?

You misunderstood; Halbertsma, being a Frisian nationalist, would NOT be negative about Friso, but the OLB is.
Another reason why Halbertsma himself would not have liked the OLB.

suche / zoek / soek / sök / søk / søg / seek/ sykje

F R Y A ~ S K É D N I S E

the early speech of our fore-fathers

"The pure Friesic and easy wording of the Oera Linda Book must be most welcome to students of English and Saxon, as a widening of the now too narrow ground of the early speech of our fore-fathers." Wm. Barnes. Macmillan's Magazine,April 1877, p. 465.

Video Studies

Cornelis Over de Linden (1811-1874) Den Helder

Eelco Verwijs (1830-1880)

first scholar who studied the manuscript and confirmed its authenticity (1867) - later he withdrew this conclusion, probably to save his career

Jan Ottema (1804-1879) Leeuwarden

first translator and publisher of the 'Oera Linda Bok' (1872 & 1876)

the oldest production of European literature

"We may thus accept that we possess in this manuscript, of which the first part was composed in the sixth century before our era, the oldest production, after Homer and Hesiod, of European literature. And here we find in our fatherland a very ancient people in possession of development, civilisation, industry, navigation, commerce, literature, and pure elevated ideas of religion, whose existence we had never even conjectured."Dr. J.G. Ottema, 1871 (translation Sandbach)